Condoms and the Principal of Double Effect

  • Thread starter Thread starter Corki
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Corki

Guest
I am posting this here in order not to derail the thread on sterilization that devolved into a debate on contraception.

The question was raised “what if the Church said that contraception was 'ok”?

I do not think that could or would ever happen.

However … I almost posted the following.
Doctrines don’t change but doctrines develop. Because of this, I can see one small area where the teaching could evolve (not that I think it will). The Church already allows the use of drugs to treat medical conditions even if they are also contraceptive in result. IN MY OPINION (which is next to worthless), I could see the Church extending this exception to condoms used **within marriage **by spouses when one has a disease. The conditions for double effect MIGHT apply (using a neutral object, a barrier, to prevent infection with the additional effect that it is contraceptive in result) . However, such an exception would never mean that contraceptives in any form (barrier, surgical or chemical) could be allowed if the primary intent is to prevent pregnancy as a means or an end. In fact, this change would actually enforce the teaching against contraception in marriage.
Click to expand...
What do more learned Catholics than me think about this?

Of course one hole in the theory is that someone using a condom to prevent infection could achieve the same result by simply abstaining. The same cannot be said for a woman taking a prescription that has a contraceptive effect to treat a condition (abnormal bleedging for example). Not having sex won’t help the condition at all.

What else am I missing?
 
The present Pope and the last Pope have repeatedly said no with regard to HIV
.
 
Interesting question! Thanks for the thoughtful post!

Here are the four conditions for the Double Effect Theory:
  1. The nature-of-the-act condition. The action must be either morally good or indifferent.
  2. The means-end condition. The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect.
  3. The right-intention condition. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect.
  4. The proportionality condition. The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect.
Click to expand...
I’m okay with number 1, since the proximate intention is to protect the spouse from harm that is sufficient to change the object of the act. In this case, it is not contraception. There might be some debate there.

Number 2 gets a little trickier, but I can still see it flying. Possibly, the bad effect (the contraception) is not directly causing the prevention of the spread of disease. I think we can get away with this because both happen at the exact same instance, therefore one cannot cause the other.

Number 3 we’re all in the clear on. Certainly a good married couple could honestly truly desire to protect their spouse and not desire to divorce the procreative aspect from the unitive aspect of sex.

Number 4 is where I see a problem. What’s the good effect? stopping the spread of disease? Not really. They could just abstain. So what’s the real good effect? Having sex with your spouse? Not really, because you’re not having sex the way God intended. It almost seems to me like there is no real good effect.

Since you are engaging in an act of sex that is essentially not how God intended it to be, and not a true self-gift, I would argue that at the very least, the good effect does not outweigh the bad effect. I might go further and state there is no good effect, but I’ll hold off on the time being.

The Double Effect Theory states that all 4 conditions must be met. I think this fails the fourth one and therefore fails the double effect theory.

Thoughts from others? I’m new to applying the Double Effect myself, so I could be off on that one.
 
smichhertz said:
Interesting question! Thanks for the thoughtful post!

Here are the four conditions for the Double Effect Theory:

I’m okay with number 1, since the proximate intention is to protect the spouse from harm that is sufficient to change the object of the act. In this case, it is not contraception. There might be some debate there.

Number 2 gets a little trickier, but I can still see it flying. Possibly, the bad effect (the contraception) is not directly causing the prevention of the spread of disease. I think we can get away with this because both happen at the exact same instance, therefore one cannot cause the other.

Number 3 we’re all in the clear on. Certainly a good married couple could honestly truly desire to protect their spouse and not desire to divorce the procreative aspect from the unitive aspect of sex.

Number 4 is where I see a problem. What’s the good effect? stopping the spread of disease? Not really. They could just abstain. So what’s the real good effect? Having sex with your spouse? Not really, because you’re not having sex the way God intended. It almost seems to me like there is no real good effect.

Since you are engaging in an act of sex that is essentially not how God intended it to be, and not a true self-gift, I would argue that at the very least, the good effect does not outweigh the bad effect. I might go further and state there is no good effect, but I’ll hold off on the time being.

The Double Effect Theory states that all 4 conditions must be met. I think this fails the fourth one and therefore fails the double effect theory.

Thoughts from others? I’m new to applying the Double Effect myself, so I could be off on that one.
Click to expand...
I think #2 would not work, because contraception is how the disease is prevented. I may be wrong but I don’t see #2 flying
 
Corki said:
I am posting this here in order not to derail the thread on sterilization that devolved into a debate on contraception.

The question was raised “what if the Church said that contraception was 'ok”?

I do not think that could or would ever happen.

However … I almost posted the following.

What do more learned Catholics than me think about this?

Of course one hole in the theory is that someone using a condom to prevent infection could achieve the same result by simply abstaining. The same cannot be said for a woman taking a prescription that has a contraceptive effect to treat a condition (abnormal bleedging for example). Not having sex won’t help the condition at all.

What else am I missing?
Click to expand...
I think it’s possible the teaching might evolve someday to allow married folks to use condoms when one spouse is infected with an STD. The Pope arleady said it was less of an evil (and a step in the right direction) for homosexual prostitutes to use them, rather than infecting their customers. And yes I realise the Pope teaches against both, but if he can make a concession of sorts for homosexual prostitutes (saying it’s less evil to use the condom rather than inflict someone with a terrible disease), surely someday he might get some epiphany that might make him more sensitive to the married couple that have an STD. Only time will tell.

We’re always going to have some people swearing up and down that no changes will ever be made to this teaching. And then we have those that think that well, it may be possible. But in the meantime, we’ll just have to be satisfied to entertain the question, answer it in all honesty and just wait for something to either happen or not happen 🙂
 
Rence said:
I think it’s possible the teaching might evolve someday to allow married folks to use condoms when one spouse is infected with an STD. The Pope arleady said it was less of an evil (and a step in the right direction) for homosexual prostitutes to use them, rather than infecting their customers. And yes I realise the Pope teaches against both, but if he can make a concession of sorts for homosexual prostitutes (saying it’s less evil to use the condom rather than inflict someone with a terrible disease), surely someday he might get some epiphany that might make him more sensitive to the married couple that have an STD. Only time will tell.

We’re always going to have some people swearing up and down that no changes will ever be made to this teaching. And then we have those that think that well, it may be possible. But in the meantime, we’ll just have to be satisfied to entertain the question, answer it in all honesty and just wait for something to either happen or not happen 🙂
Click to expand...
Did he say it was OK for heterosexual prostitutes to use them?
 
Debora123 said:
Did he say it was OK for heterosexual prostitutes to use them?
Click to expand...
He didn’t say it was ok for **anyone **to use them.

The Pope said that if a homosexual prostitute used a condom to prevent infection it might be seen as a first step toward a more right ordered life. A spokesman clarified that this would apply to a heterosexual prostitute as well. It is a first step but doesn’t make it “ok”.
 
Redratfish said:
I think #2 would not work, because contraception is how the disease is prevented. I may be wrong but I don’t see #2 flying
Click to expand...
I see what you are saying but that’s the same thing that happens with hormones and those are considered ok. A woman who is prescribed hormones (sometimes even in the same packaging as birth control) but is taking them to control another condition is relying on the action of the drug to prevent ovulation in order to treat her condition.
 
Rence said:
No, the letter was to a specific group IIRC, rather than it being an encyclical, which is for all.

What Corki said 🙂
Click to expand...
It was an interview, one of a series, that was published as a book. FWIW.
 
Corki said:
The Pope said that if a homosexual prostitute used a condom to prevent infection it might be seen as a first step toward a more right ordered life. A spokesman clarified that this would apply to a heterosexual prostitute as well. It is a first step but doesn’t make it “ok”.
Click to expand...
So if it applies to heterosexuals as well, why do people only talk about it in reference to homosexuals?
 
Is it possible that the double effect being in play makes the sin venial instead of mortal?
For instance, if a woman is taking a medicine like the Pill for health reasons, but she also has the contraceptive intent, is she still commiting a mortal sin?
 
Debora123 said:
So if it applies to heterosexuals as well, why do people only talk about it in reference to homosexuals?
Click to expand...
Because that was the way the Pope answered the question in the interview. It wasn’t an official document that gets parsed and re-written to make sure everything is perfect. It was a journalist asking questions which the Pope answered more or less off the cuff.

Personally, I think the Pope used the homosexual example because when used by a homosexual prostitute, a condom has no contraceptive function. But that’s just a guess on my part.
 
samiam1611 said:
Is it possible that the double effect being in play makes the sin venial instead of mortal?
Click to expand...
No, the only things that make a grave sin venial instead of mortal are lack of full knowledge or lack of consent.
For instance, if a woman is taking a medicine like the Pill for health reasons, but she also has the contraceptive intent, is she still commiting a mortal sin?
Click to expand...
If she chose the pill out of other non-contraceptive choices because it was contraceptive too, she might be committing a sin. But it isn’t necessarily a sin to be happy with an unintended result.
 
Corki said:
That’s a really good reason not to do something but what I am trying to get to is the “why”.
Click to expand...
the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect

The condom fails the first criteria for double effect because it destroys the unitive aspect of sex. Part of the essential criteria for sex to be unitive is Tab A in Slot B with sperm deposited in Slot B. I don’t understand it -in fact it sounds more like we’re talking about an ATM transaction- but that is what I’ve read.
 
Redratfish said:
I think #2 would not work, because contraception is how the disease is prevented. I may be wrong but I don’t see #2 flying
Click to expand...
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, it’s tricky, but here’s why I think it might fly: (feel free to correct me. I’m not at all 100% on this, and would love constructive criticism)

Remember, the Church allows women to use ABC pills for the purpose of regulating periods. Why? Because the pill in and of itself is just a pill, nothing good or bad in it. What makes it bad is when you use it to deny life. So if you’re just taking it for medicinal purposes, that’s not contraception.

So same thing with a condom: It’s just a piece of rubber. It’s when it is USED for contraceptive purposes that it becomes immoral. Using it to prevent disease with the undesired side effect of contraception is immoral.

So when you view it as a piece of rubber with two effects - contraception and prevention of disease, then it is possible to see it satisfying #2.

Comments welcome and appreciated!
 
KostyaJMJ said:
the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect

The condom fails the first criteria for double effect because it destroys the unitive aspect of sex. Part of the essential criteria for sex to be unitive is Tab A in Slot B with sperm deposited in Slot B. I don’t understand it -in fact it sounds more like we’re talking about an ATM transaction- but that is what I’ve read.
Click to expand...
But what about women who take ABC for medicinal purposes to regulate their period? That’s considered morally permissible. So similarly, why can’t wear a condom for medicinal purposes?

For the record, I don’t disagree with you that it still fails double effect, I just think it fails the fourth condition and not the first.
 
samiam1611 said:
Is it possible that the double effect being in play makes the sin venial instead of mortal?
For instance, if a woman is taking a medicine like the Pill for health reasons, but she also has the contraceptive intent, is she still commiting a mortal sin?
Click to expand...
I think you are confused on that. A woman taking the pill for health reasons is not committing ANY sin, venial or mortal.

The Double Effect Principle doesn’t change something from mortal to venial, it simply declares an act morally permissible or immoral. Other factors come into play to determine the gravity of the act (like whether mortal or venial).
 
smichhertz said:
But what about women who take ABC for medicinal purposes to regulate their period? That’s considered morally permissible. So similarly, why can’t wear a condom for medicinal purposes?

For the record, I don’t disagree with you that it still fails double effect, I just think it fails the fourth condition and not the first.
Click to expand...
This is the easy one. The condom does nothing to actually treat the medical issue. It is just a way to avoid spreading the infection to another person. The infected person is still infected and the condom did nothing to change that. With the “pill” the hormone is an actual treatment. (It’s debatable if it’s a good treatment, in many cases but that’s another issue). The hormones have an actual positive effect on the problem (irregular periods or heavy bleeding).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top